TJ Askew

Dr. Kalantzis
Christian Theology
October 25, 2022
Annotated Outline of McCall & Piper Debate
These written debates between John Piper and Tom McCall deal with the theological
ideas of determinism and the glorification, sovereignty, goodness, and aseity of God. This is a
three-part debate, with McCall addressing Piper’s previous writings, Piper responding to
McCall’s points, and McCall concluding the debate with his final response.
1. I Believe In Divine Sovereignty: Thomas H. McCall
I. Introduction
McCall writes first, affirming his belief that God is separate from creation, omnipotent,
and, “providentially active in governing and judging the world without being in any way
threatened by it” (205).
II. Divine Sovereignty as Divine Determinism
While this seems unproblematic, Piper and others believe that God is only sovereign over
event A or person B if God determines all of B’s actions and that event A occurs. However,
when this is coupled with the affirmation that God is sovereign over everything that is not God,
then we are faced with the undeniable conclusion that everything that ever happens… is
determined to occur, and in fact, is determined to occur in exact accordance with the decreed will
of God. However, this makes it, “undeniable that exactly all the horrific events of human history
are ultimately due to God’s will.” Additionally, this view would mean, “some sinners are saved
because God determines their salvation, and other sinners are damned because God determines
that they indeed will be damned” (207). How then, could the God we are serving be a perfectly
good God?
To explore this, McCall lays out five premises:
1. God truly loves all persons
2. Truly to love someone is to desire her well-being and to promote her true flourishing as
much as you can.
3. The true well-being and flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship
with God, a saving relationship in which we accept the invitation of the gospel and come
to love and obey him
4. God could determine all persons freely to accept the invitation of the gospel and come to
a right relationship and be saved
5. Therefore, all persons will be saved. (207)
If you believe in Piper’s definition of salvation, then all these must be true. However, as
the conclusion is unbiblical, this cannot be the true case. Therefore, McCall argues, premise four
must be incorrect.
III. The “Justificiation” of God’s Ways
A. The Majesty of Divine Sovereignty
While up to this point McCall has been targeting general Calvinist beliefs, he now
interacts directly with Piper’s writings. Piper does believe that God predetermines every action
and every event, “including demonic and stanic action” (209). He does this to maximize his
glory throughout the universe. To defend this view, Piper uses Romanas 9:1-23, as God is
preserved “by means of the predestination of individuals to their respective eternal destinies.” “in
choosing unconditionally those on whom he will have mercy and those whom he will harden
God is not unrighteous, for in this ‘electing purpose’ he is acting out of a full allegiance to his
name and esteem of his glory” (209). This, in turn, means that when “the worst of evils befall us,
they do not ultimately come from anywhere other than God’s hand.” (210)
B. Best of All Possible Worlds
Piper’s answer as to why God not only allows evil but determines evil, is simple: to bring
about the best of all possible worlds: the one where God’s glory is maximized. He affirms that
God indeed does love everyone and desires their salvation. He worlds to explain this by saying
that “God’s emotional life is complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend… therefore we
should not stumble over the fact that God does and does not take pleasure in the death of the
wicked” (211). However, this seems contradictory, and as Karl Barth points out, “In Him, there
is no paradox, no antinomy, no division” as God is “not a God of confusion, but of peace” (1 Cor
14:33).
Piper argues that God looks through everything through two lenses: short and long-term.
The narrow lens, “God is faced with things that bring him sorrow. But looking through the wide
lends, God sees that it all brings glory to him, thus he delights in it.” (211) While God would like
to save everyone, God’s will to bring all to Him is “restrained by his commitment to the
glorification of his sovereign grace” (212). In essence, God must exhibit his wrath as these
divine actions of wrath and evil allow for the “full range of divine attributes to be exercised.”
C. The “Justification” Explained
Pipe argues, “it is the glory of God and his essential nature mainly to dispense mercy (but
also wrath) on whomever he pleases, apart from any constraint originating outside his will. This
is the “essence of what it means to be God” (212). Because God’s glory must be maximized, our
world, full of sin and suffering, must be the one where God’s glory is maximized. But how could
this suffering and sin lead to more glorification of God? To Piper, “the glory of God shines most
brightly, most fully, most beautifully in the manifestation of the glory of his grace” (214). And
because God must manifest all of himself, Piper argues that it “would be impossible to for them
(humans) to share with God the delight He has in His mercy unless they saw clearly the
awfulness of the almighty wrath from which His mercy delivers them” (213).
IV. Some Problems With the “Justification” Strategy
In reply, McCall quotes David Bentley Hart, who argues that the price of such
justification, “requires us to believe in and love a God whose good ends will be realized not only
in spite of- but entirely by way of- every cruelty, every fortuitous misery, every catastrophe,
every sin the world has ever known… it is a strange thing to seek peace in a universe rendered
morally intelligible at the cost of a God rendered morally loathsome” (215).
A. Some Moral Problems
Piper’s theology requires that evil is part of the greatest good, which is contrary to the
fundamental basis of Christianity: the fact that “Good is not evil” (216). Because love is not self-
seeking (1 Cor 13:5) and God tells us to “love each other as I have loved you” (John 15:12), the
idea that everything God does is so he can be loved better does not align with Biblical love.
B. A Mereological Problem
McCall shows that if “evil aspects (events, actions, dispositions, etc.) are essential parts
of the greatest good, then the greatest good is dependent upon evil (217). Because this means that
displaying God’s wrath is essential to God, the logical conclusion is that God must create a sinful
world to display his wrath. This clearly contradicts Christian views of divine holiness and aseity.
(219)
C. A Modal Problem
 McCall points out that given Piper’s view, God is not God if God is not maximally
glorified. But if God must display his wrath or be glorified by the world to be maximally
glorified, then his Godliness is contingent on the creation of the world, which contradicts God’s
aseity.
V. The Biblical View?
This section looks outside the deeper implications of Piper’s theology and focuses on if it
is backed by Scripture.
A. The Strongest Case? The Argument from Rom 9:1-23
Piper main rational for these beliefs are grounded in Romans 9:1-23, where Piper
believes this passage, “refers directly to (a) the eternal destinies of (b) individuals” (221). First,
Piper must prove that the clause in verse 22-23 must be causal, meaning “God endured vessels of
wrath because he wanted to show his wrath” rather than concessive (although) (221). While it
may be causal, the concessive is also possible. Second, Piper must prove the voice is passive, not
middle, in the phrase, “God is the one who fits (or creates) the vessels for destruction.” (222)
B. From Exegesis to Theology
McCall then argues that even if Piper is correct in his interpretation, this does not show
that Paul holds to Piper’s conclusion that “to argue God should not give open display to his
wrath is to imply that it is not in fact florious that God is not in fact as he should be” (223). This
view holds that God is obligated to display his glory, which is not a Biblical belief, as the Trinity
was fully glorified before creation. (223)
VI. Conclusion
McCall’s arguments show that Piper’s views on divine determinism actually, “entails the
denial of divine aseity- a core element of the doctrine itself.” (224)
2. I Believe in God’s Self-Sufficiency: A Response to Thomas McCall: John Piper
Piper starts by affirming his belief in the aseity of God and the “purposeful wisdom in
creation” (227). While Piper defends his view that God created the world to display his glory,
Piper does not believe that this display of God’s glory is constitutive of God’s being. He also
denies the claim that he believes creation, or God’s display of glory, is, “constitutive of God’s
being” (229). In reality, Piper believes that within whatever God creates, he must display his
glory. If there was no creation, God would not need to display his glory because he is fully
fulfilled through the Trinity. Therefore, it does not contradict, “God’s aseity to say that in the act
of creation and redemption and judgement it is God’s nature and glory and name to act freely in
the display of grace and wrath.” (230)
A. Main Argument
Next, Piper makes his argument for the defense of determinism in Romans 9:22-23.
Using other Biblical examples (Rom 2:4, Rom 9:17, Jer 11:22) and Greek insights, Piper shows
“God’s patience compounds his judgment when it is resisted” and that the most likely reading of
this passage is Paul believes that God does in fact prepare vessels for destruction, as he did with
Pharoah. (232)
B. Conclusion & Pastoral Epilogue
Piper concludes by reaffirming his belief in the aseity of God and goodness. He then
points out that McCall did not make his argument as to why God foresaw the horrors and
suffering of our world and decided to create humans anyway. He concludes with a pastoral
epilogue where he admits that his viewpoint can be hard to digest, but encourages people to,
“pray and study” to find the truth. (234)
3. We Believe in God’s Sovereign Goodness” A Rejoinder to John Piper: Thomas H. McCall
 I. Introduction
While McCall understands Piper affirms divine aseity, he must continue to explore some
issues with his theology.
II. Remaining Questions
First McCall questions whether Piper’s God has complete divine freedom, as it seems as
though God is held to this world of “maximum glorification”. While Piper denies that God needs
the world, McCall shows that his theology, “would not be able to deny that the world is
necessary to God, nor would she be able to deny that God would not be God apart from the
world” (236). Therefore, “God’s actions- although free from external constraint or compulsion-
are nonetheless determined. Thus God’s action in creating this world is necessary.” (236)
He then lays out the two possibilities for Piper’s belief on divine freedom:
1. Divine action with respect to creation is necessary.
a. McCall argues that if creation is necessary, then God does not exist outside of
creation, blurring the line between fatalism and determinism. (237)
2. Divine action with respect to creation is contingent. This view can be understood as:
2* Divine action with respect to creation, by virtue of which God is glorified both ad
extra and ad intra, is contingent on creation.
i. This can not be true because Jesus said he was with the Father before
creation.
2** Divine action with respect to creation, by virtue of which God is glorified ad
extra, but not ad intra, is contingent on creation.
ii. While this is the Biblically correct view, it contradicts Piper’s previous
statements that God must show his power and wrath, and that sin and
punishment must have been decreed. (238)
Assuming Piper believes B** (God does not benefit from creation as he is already
maximumly glorified through ad intra relationships) his belief of 2** can not be true (239). This
is because God’s “passion for his glory is so that we may benefit, that we may know him in the
fullness of his blessed life of holy love as Trinity” not so we can increase his glory. (238)
III. Further Problems
He then engages with Piper’s statement that “God is most glorified in us when we are
most satisfied in him” (239). If this quote is true, then those that have been damned by divine
decree are definitely not most satisfied in him, and therefore this world can not be driven by the
maximization of God’s glory.
McCall concludes that if Piper believes that God decreed everything that happens
because it’s most good for God, but “endorses B** and affirms that God is maximally glorified
and maximally great sans creation, then he cuts himself off from such explanations” (240). This
view would cut God’s will into two contradictory views: “preceptive will of God” (don’t sin) and
“decretive will of God” (sin because I decreed it). (240)
To illustrate this McCall uses a powerful example of a parent who acts as God in this
scenario, willing his kids to light their room on fire after warning them not to. He then saves
some of the children, allowing others to burn to show his grace and maximize his glorification.
This horrific example shows how the God of Piper’s theology can be easily viewed as a
“madman” (242).
Finally, McCall engages with Piper’s view that if God is indeed not most glorified when
we are most satisfied in him, it may be that “I’ll look back on my sin when I’m in heaven and
say, “How could such grace have carried on with me?” and I’ll love his grace more than I ever
would have, had I made progress more quickly” (243). However, McCall shows this view
supports the idea that we should “continue in sin in order that grace may abound” which is
unbiblical and contradicts the “I should not commit sin” view of Christianity. (243)
IV. Conclusion
McCall concludes with a final pastoral issues, just as Piper did. He articulates the
shocking nature of the gospel and how we are constantly, “unprepared for the drastic way that
God acts for us and our salvation” (245). However, there are ways to share this story that avoid
the, “perils and pitfalls of theological determinism, and it is one that is arguably more faithful to
the full witness of Scripture.” (246)
I spent an estimated six hours reading and taking notes on the debate, two hours writing
the annotated outline, and thirty minutes editing.